Katy Penland
Well-known member
Wasn't quite sure where to ask this question, but I think ultimately it is one of ethics...
Three times in as many threads, people in the UK have been reluctant to call the RSPCA for either advice about injured/ill birds or have not wanted to take the birds to the nearest RSPCA because, they say, the RSPCA has a tendency to simply put the birds down rather than treat/care for them and re-release them.
The fact that three different people have mentioned this makes me wonder just what about "protection" is this organization providing, in this case, to wild birds if they have a reputation (deserved or not) for simply killing them? I'm not asking to start a debate over the whole spectrum of merits of this organization, but I am concerned that we (meaning, BF staff and other members) have been encouraging people to call this group for help when in fact that may not be a sound practice.
Can anyone shed any light on the RSPCA's policy for handling/treating wild birds?
Three times in as many threads, people in the UK have been reluctant to call the RSPCA for either advice about injured/ill birds or have not wanted to take the birds to the nearest RSPCA because, they say, the RSPCA has a tendency to simply put the birds down rather than treat/care for them and re-release them.
The fact that three different people have mentioned this makes me wonder just what about "protection" is this organization providing, in this case, to wild birds if they have a reputation (deserved or not) for simply killing them? I'm not asking to start a debate over the whole spectrum of merits of this organization, but I am concerned that we (meaning, BF staff and other members) have been encouraging people to call this group for help when in fact that may not be a sound practice.
Can anyone shed any light on the RSPCA's policy for handling/treating wild birds?